Author Michael Wolff says he learned months in advance about First Lady Melania Trump’s latest legal move against him — and he has one of President Donald Trump’s own lawyers to thank for the heads-up.
Wolff, 72, revealed on the “Inside Trump’s Head” podcast that on Jan. 26, 2026, he received an accidental text from Boris Epshteyn, a personal attorney to the president, that read: “Hey team, what’s our timing on the Section 11 filing?” Wolff told co-host Joanna Coles that Epshteyn had sent it to the wrong person — Wolff’s number was already in the lawyer’s contacts from previous off-the-record conversations — and said the mistake confirmed the legal campaign against him was being orchestrated at the highest levels of the Trump legal operation.
A $1 Billion Threat Spirals Into Courtroom Drama
The dispute traces back to October 2025, when Melania Trump threatened to file a $1 billion lawsuit against Wolff over claims he made about her and the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Those claims included an allegation that Melania may have first crossed paths with Donald Trump through Epstein’s social circle, and a separate allegation that the president first slept with Melania aboard Epstein’s private jet. In response, Wolff filed suit against Melania under anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statutes — laws designed to shield journalists and others from litigation intended to suppress free expression rather than seek genuine legal remedy.
That lawsuit did not survive long. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Federalist Society member whom Trump appointed to New York’s Southern District during his first term, dismissed Wolff’s case in May. Vyskocil ruled that Wolff had attempted to litigate a dispute before any formal lawsuit had actually been filed against him. Wolff has since appealed that dismissal to the Second Circuit.
Melania Pushes for Sanctions Despite Judicial Skepticism
Rather than letting the matter rest after winning the dismissal, Melania Trump’s legal team moved to seek sanctions against Wolff, arguing he should be penalized for what they described as “factual misrepresentations, frivolous legal arguments and bad-faith conduct” — penalties they say should be sufficient to deter future misconduct and reimburse her legal costs.
That push, however, ran into immediate resistance from Vyskocil herself. On July 1, she questioned whether it was even in the parties’ interest to keep battling in her courtroom. She told Melania’s lawyers that a Rule 11 sanctions motion — the term Epshteyn used in his text as ‘Section 11’ — carries a demanding legal standard. The judge also remarked that litigants sometimes lose sight of whether the cost of pursuing a motion is justified by its likely outcome. Despite that signal, Melania’s attorneys indicated they intend to press ahead.
“Essentially, they are moving to sanction my lawyers for doing nothing more than bringing the lawsuit against Melania Trump,” Wolff said on the podcast. “So this is preposterous on its face.”
Wolff’s Long History of Trump Controversies
Wolff has built much of his recent career chronicling the Trump orbit, producing four books about the president and his administrations: “Fire and Fury,” “Siege,” “Landslide,” and “All or Nothing.”
His first Trump book, “Fire and Fury,” caused an immediate firestorm when excerpts surfaced on Jan. 4, 2018, prompting Trump to dispatch lawyers and the White House to brand it tabloid fiction.
Critics of Wolff’s work have long pointed to inconsistencies in his reporting. In the introduction to “Fire and Fury,” Wolff himself acknowledged that many accounts within the book conflict with one another and that some may prove inaccurate — though he added that he settled on the versions of events he believed to be true. Those caveats have done little to reduce the legal and political turbulence that has followed his Trump coverage.
What Comes Next for Both Sides
With Vyskocil’s skepticism now on the record, Melania’s sanctions push faces a steep uphill climb — courts rarely award Rule 11 sanctions without compelling proof of deliberate bad faith, the exact bar the judge underscored. Wolff, for his part, framed the entire effort as a classic delay-and-drain tactic, arguing it reflects a broader pattern in which Trump-aligned litigants file aggressive motions primarily to exhaust opponents financially rather than prevail on the merits.
